list_wifi_networks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds that it scans and reports signal strength. It does not mention scan duration, hardware/driver requirements, or potential permission prompts, so it adds only moderate behavioral context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is a single clear sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only query with annotations covering safety, the description is almost complete. It could mention that scanning may take time or require WiFi hardware, but for a simple list operation it provides enough to select and invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a meaningful burden. The description correctly focuses on the operation rather than inventing parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: scan/list available WiFi networks, and adds that signal strength is included. It is clearly separable from siblings such as connect_wifi, disconnect_wifi, and get_network_status, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: call this to discover nearby networks, likely before connect_wifi. However, it does not state when to prefer it over get_network_status or when not to use it, and no prerequisites such as WiFi being enabled are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.